What do you think of the charismatic gifts of Pentecost?

[po18guy]

It just struck me that the reason for animus between TLM and charismatic types might be envy, snobbery, or even a sense of competition, if you will. I note that both movements had their genesis at approximately the same time.

Some charismatic types display a much more flamboyant faith, which may engender a perception of superiority. Indeed, flamboyance for its own sake must be avoided. To some, this behavior seems disrespectful - this much has already been mentioned in this thread. But, these are charisms of the Holy Spirit, after all. The people in Jerusalem at Pentecost thought the Apostles were drunk! (Acts 2:13-21). Indeed, the Spirit working through the disciples also made them spectacles during Jesus return to Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40). But, the gift of healing, a powerful charism, was obviously one of the more spectacular gifts, and was to be used freely (Matthew 10:8).

TLM types counter with a form of Mass which is venerated, being rooted in antiquity, and which requires the study of, if not the mastery of, an ancient and foreign language. However, TLM was purposefully set aside so that the meaning and purpose of the Mass might be made more clear to the average believer. It is a very sober, ordered and respectful means of bearing witness to the Sacrifice - at least for those who understand Latin.

I see the TLM movement as a reaction/rejection of the physical appearance of some Charisms. No one has ever explained how mass in a language which only the privileged few understand is more meaningful to the entire Church. How is a simple poor person supposed to learn Latin in the Peruvian Andes, or in Sri Lanka? This gives me the impression that TLM is an elite movement. Indeed, how are we to attract converts or reverts by insisting that they learn another language? Why would a searching protestant have any reason to look deeper into Catholicism? I see no benefit to the entire Church from this. As well, some use the charisms as an exclusive means of worship, which is also to be condemned.

I do note that the Holy Spirit gave the gifts of language to the Apostles, so that those devout men gathered in Jerusalem could understand the Gospel. The Spirit did not give those men the ability to understand Aramaic. If Latin is good, would not Aramaic, Jesus’ native language, be even better?

This being personal opinion, I expect to be briskly countered on these points, perhaps by both sides.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So I take it you approve of this method of Charismatics within the Catholic Church. You believe that you can be trained in these gifts instead of given them?

if they really dig into this movement, where it came from and what is the motive, they would be surprised. seriously. their teachings and all. they would abandon this movement in a heart beat.

 

[Melchior_1]

So I take it you approve of this method of Charismatics within the Catholic Church. You believe that you can be trained in these gifts instead of given them?

Yes I do approve of the Charismatic movement, one may say I’m an active participant. I do not believe you can be “trained” in the gifts though. Who believes you can “train” prophecy? I mean, really. That’s just nonsense.

 

[Melchior_1]

It just struck me that the reason for animus between TLM and charismatic types might be envy, snobbery, or even a sense of competition, if you will. I note that both movements had their genesis at approximately the same time.

Some charismatic types display a much more flamboyant faith, which may engender a perception of superiority. Indeed, flamboyance for its own sake must be avoided. To some, this behavior seems disrespectful - this much has already been mentioned in this thread. But, these are charisms of the Holy Spirit, after all. The people in Jerusalem at Pentecost thought the Apostles were drunk! (Acts 2:13-21). Indeed, the Spirit working through the disciples also made them spectacles during Jesus return to Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40). But, the gift of healing, a powerful charism, was obviously one of the more spectacular gifts, and was to be used freely (Matthew 10:8).

TLM types counter with a form of Mass which is venerated, being rooted in antiquity, and which requires the study of, if not the mastery of, an ancient and foreign language. However, TLM was purposefully set aside so that the meaning and purpose of the Mass might be made more clear to the average believer. It is a very sober, ordered and respectful means of bearing witness to the Sacrifice - at least for those who understand Latin.

I see the TLM movement as a reaction/rejection of the physical appearance of some Charisms. No one has ever explained how mass in a language which only the privileged few understand is more meaningful to the entire Church. How is a simple poor person supposed to learn Latin in the Peruvian Andes, or in Sri Lanka? This gives me the impression that TLM is an elite movement. Indeed, how are we to attract converts or reverts by insisting that they learn another language? Why would a searching protestant have any reason to look deeper into Catholicism? I see no benefit to the entire Church from this. As well, some use the charisms as an exclusive means of worship, which is also to be condemned.

I do note that the Holy Spirit gave the gifts of language to the Apostles, so that those devout men gathered in Jerusalem could understand the Gospel. The Spirit did not give those men the ability to understand Aramaic. If Latin is good, would not Aramaic, Jesus’ native language, be even better?

This being personal opinion, I expect to be briskly countered on these points, perhaps by both sides.

Not from me, I approve of all of this post!

 

[Melchior_1]

if they really dig into this movement, where it came from and what is the motive, they would be surprised. seriously. their teachings and all. they would abandon this movement in a heart beat.

I have researched this movement, just like our last two Popes did. And like them I accept it.

Unless you have a problem with JPII and BXVI?

 

[po18guy]

So I take it you approve of this method of Charismatics within the Catholic Church. You believe that you can be trained in these gifts instead of given them?

These gifts were received at Confirmation, the laying on of hands. The Spirit gives gifts according to His will. The Charismatic movement seeks to release and use these gifts for the edification of the Church. God’s gifts can be bottled up in hardened heart, or one which lacks docility to the Spirit. “To whom much is given, much is expected”. This is frightening to contemplate, especially since we all the baptized have received gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[FirstCalled]

It just struck me that the reason for animus between TLM and charismatic types might be envy, snobbery, or even a sense of competition, if you will. I note that both movements had their genesis at approximately the same time.
**
It is not any of those things in regards to myself. I was absorbed into the Charismatic movement for awhile but after thinking long and hard and having many doubts from the beginning I realized that it is not effective in increasing faith, and does not bring about greater respect and reverence for the sacraments, but involves itself in “driving out demons”, “laying on hands” and “speaking in tongues.” If speaking in tongues were being used to preach to someone in a foreign language that’s one thing, other things another. Laying on hands has special significance with the priesthood, I saw the lines being blurred not such a great thing. The demons certainly seem to come out don’t they, they turn in on when the lights dim and are gone when the lights go up, I got suspicious.**

Some charismatic types display a much more flamboyant faith, which may engender a perception of superiority. Indeed, flamboyance for its own sake must be avoided. To some, this behavior seems disrespectful - this much has already been mentioned in this thread. But, these are charisms of the Holy Spirit, after all. The people in Jerusalem at Pentecost thought the Apostles were drunk! (Acts 2:13-21). Indeed, the Spirit working through the disciples also made them spectacles during Jesus return to Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40). But, the gift of healing, a powerful charism, was obviously one of the more spectacular gifts, and was to be used freely (Matthew 10:8).
**
Some thought the Apostles were drunk, but I believe it states that they were speaking in tongues of the region and people understood them in their own language. It was not uninterpreted “babble”. I don’t believe they think they are superior, but it is flamboyance, and misguided I believe at that. There are two sacraments of healing, both of which only a priest can confer. Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick.**

TLM types counter with a form of Mass which is venerated, being rooted in antiquity, and which requires the study of, if not the mastery of, an ancient and foreign language. However, TLM was purposefully set aside so that the meaning and purpose of the Mass might be made more clear to the average believer. It is a very sober, ordered and respectful means of bearing witness to the Sacrifice - at least for those who understand Latin.

I see the TLM movement as a reaction/rejection of the physical appearance of some Charisms. No one has ever explained how mass in a language which only the privileged few understand is more meaningful to the entire Church. How is a simple poor person supposed to learn Latin in the Peruvian Andes, or in Sri Lanka? This gives me the impression that TLM is an elite movement. Indeed, how are we to attract converts or reverts by insisting that they learn another language? Why would a searching protestant have any reason to look deeper into Catholicism? I see no benefit to the entire Church from this. As well, some use the charisms as an exclusive means of worship, which is also to be condemned.
**
Mass in Latin works fine. And did for many hundred years. Catholicism experienced phenomenal growth while having a reverent ancient mass, and since the NO mass, we have seen faith in the sacraments and church attendance in the vernacular go WAY down. Latin is the language of the Church. Having it in a “dead” language means we don’t have to worry about saying the wrong thing, the language isn’t constantly changing with the times. We have frequent problems with translations in the vernacular, as those are constantly changing, in fact, we are having a MAJOR revision due next year.**

I do note that the Holy Spirit gave the gifts of language to the Apostles, so that those devout men gathered in Jerusalem could understand the Gospel. The Spirit did not give those men the ability to understand Aramaic. If Latin is good, would not Aramaic, Jesus’ native language, be even better?

The gifts of language so that those of different languages in the town square could understand the praises they were singing, I’m sure they very well could have been shouting joyously in Aramaic as well.

This being personal opinion, I expect to be briskly countered on these points, perhaps by both sides.

And rightly so.

Comments in Bold.

 

[anjoh66]

I think that Mass only in Latin and scriptures being read in Latin was one of the reasons the protestant revolution succeeded.

It was one of their main claims that it should be held in the language of the people.

Who knows, if the church had given the Mass in the local language probably the protestant revolution had failed and we wouldnt know the protestant churches we see today.

Latin was at that time a language only for the elite.

Nevertheless Latin Mass is very beautiful and today we in the western world doesnt need the mas to get knowledge about our faith, but that was crucial at the medieval ages.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Not from me, I approve of all of this post!

Me too!!

 

[FirstCalled]

I think that Mass only in Latin and scriptures being read in Latin was one of the reasons the protestant revolution succeeded.

It was one of their main claims that it should be held in the language of the people.

Who knows, if the church had given the Mass in the local language probably the protestant revolution had failed and we wouldnt know the protestant churches we see today.

Latin was at that time a language only for the elite.

I think language had a far less claim to it than people realize; a lot of things were addressed in the Council of Trent but by that time the protestant movement had too much of a hold. Had it come 100 years earlier that might have helped. Abuse of indulgences got way out of hand, they even had a jingle, “Every time a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!” But like I said, they were addressed, a little late, and Johannes Eck, worked to translate the bible in German, while working within the CC, whereas Luther without.

But that’s OT, maybe a mod can split the thread or something.

 

[po18guy]

Comments in Bold.

As to the Charismatic movement, it is approved, as is TLM, so what’s the big deal? Those who want to participate in either can choose. A Church that has to span the entire globe, taking in all cultures, political structures, liturgical forms, and which must remain true over many centuries, from year one until the end, must certainly have a lot of variety in it - all pivoting around the Gospel of Christ.

I use whatever gifts I have mostly in prayer. As I mentioned earlier, I have never spoken a single syllable in any “tongue” - that is not what was given me. But, I have also never experienced a Latin mass, and the thought of it is somewhat disquieting to me. I will abide by the decision of any Church Council. If they decree Latin, then Latin it is, but it will cause turmoil such as V2 never brought about.

I don’t see the fascination with Latin. It’s the same Blessed thing no matter the language. Is it a sense of nostalgia that is driving this? But, that’s just my thinking.

 

[beth40n2]

I was participating in a thread about the gift of tongues, and found myself surprised by the hostility many Catholics have to these gifts, which are clearly the birthright of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Do traditional Catholics believe as some of the Baptists do that the gifts written about in the NT and the early fathers have ceased?

Can you comment about these two verses?

1 Cor. 14.39 - Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

1 Thes 5:19-21 - Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Thank you for your feedback.

Here are a couple utube segments about the Charismatic Catholic Renewal. See for yourself what the church believes about the gifts. You will hear Pope John Paul II and Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM, Cap., Preacher to the Papal Household

youtube.com/watch?v=J-QDOcDGDWA
42 years of dramatic worldwide growth of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (visions, tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) excerpted from the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (ICCRS) DVD “A New Pentecost” featuring a brief history, papal promotion, endorsement and testimonies. The full DVD is available at: iccrs.org

youtube.com/watch?v=9-5tkirrXRQ
“Charismatic Renewal: An Authentic Expression of Catholic Faith”
by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM, Cap., Preacher to the Papal Household
Talk given to a Southern California Renewal Communities (SCRC) event, 2008.

In fact if you would like to hear Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM, Cap., Preacher to the Papal Household he is speaking at the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Conference in St. Paul Minnesota Oct 29-31, 2010 nsc-chariscenter.org/flyer.htm

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think that Mass only in Latin and scriptures being read in Latin was one of the reasons the protestant revolution succeeded.

It was one of their main claims that it should be held in the language of the people.

Who knows, if the church had given the Mass in the local language probably the protestant revolution had failed and we wouldnt know the protestant churches we see today.

Latin was at that time a language only for the elite.

Nevertheless Latin Mass is very beautiful and today we in the western world doesnt need the mas to get knowledge about our faith, but that was crucial at the medieval ages.

i dont know where you have been but protestantism begin to spread all over after VII. before that protestantism was very small and the CC was always full.

 

[po18guy]

i dont know where you have been but protestantism begin to spread all over after VII. before that protestantism was very small and the CC was always full.

Ah, but V2 did not change the world, it was a response to a world that was already rapidly changing.

 

[MarkThompson]

i dont know where you have been but protestantism begin to spread all over after VII. before that protestantism was very small and the CC was always full.

Right – countries like the United States, England, Sweden, and Germany were virtually 100% Catholic until the 1960’s.

 

[anjoh66]

Right – countries like the United States, England, Sweden, and Germany were virtually 100% Catholic until the 1960’s.

Yes I am from sweden and i thought we have been protestants since 1560 and that catholicism was even forbidden by law until beginning of 1900s

Somehow it still is at least for the King, nobody can ascend the throne if they are not confessing Lutherans.

 

[anjoh66]

i dont know where you have been but protestantism begin to spread all over after VII. before that protestantism was very small and the CC was always full.

This was a new experience, i have never heard before that it was VII that spread protestantism.

Maybe you can give me one example off a country that became protestant after VII.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This was a new experience, i have never heard before that it was VII that spread protestantism.

Maybe you can give me one example off a country that became protestant after VII.

Brasil is one of them. without mention that after VII those mega churches begin spreading and taking Catholics with them. we know that the attendance of Catholics in Church became scarce. France lost many Catholics. throughout Europa the CC lost many Catholics. south America lost thousands of Catholics for protestantism.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Right – countries like the United States, England, Sweden, and Germany were virtually 100% Catholic until the 1960’s.

what are we talking about here.

 

[MarkThompson]

what are we talking about here.

We’re talking about the actual history of Protestantism, not a recently-invented mythology having to do with Vatican II. So those are a few examples of major countries that were mostly, if not almost completely, Protestant from long, long before Vatican II. Which reminds me, if Protestantism was so “very small” and insignificant prior to Vatican II, why did they feel the need to invite Protestant observers to the Council? The Council of Trent, I mean.